Download Article (PDF)

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 368 3rd International Conference on Art Studies: Science, Experience, Education (ICASSEE 2019) Distance Changes as the Means of Expression in the Cinema Art

Anry Vartanov Ekaterina Salnikova Mass Media Arts Department Mass Media Arts Department State Institute for Art Studies State Institute for Art Studies Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract—The principle of the changing distance between art saw an urgent need for a variety of camera positions in the camera and the object is discussed in the article. The relation to the subject. In fact, many opportunities of authors write about significant features of the changing changing the distance can be found in early photography. It distance in art films of the twentieth century and note some actually shows how a new technical art gradually reveals its new details in the use of changing distance in the art films of unique capabilities. Photography boldly varies the distance to nowadays. It helps to realize the transformation of cinema the subject, which is especially true for such widespread poetics in the current period. The important trend today is the genres as a photo essay and a photo series [4]. Even before effects of the static camera in the climax dramatic scenes. The the birth of screen art, these genres solved problems in many authors analyze several scenes in the films of Fellini, respects similar to those of cinema and television. Tarkovsky, Steve McQueen to describe the aesthetical difference between the auteur film of XX century and modern Cinema and television - dynamic arts - went much further intellectual film directing. than photography. Life is moving forward captured by cine- or tele-cameras. Similarly, a camera itself is moving on a Keywords—cinema; poetics; camera; changing distance; trolley, a crane or in operator’s hands. Finally, an illusion of view; artistic vision; close-up; long shot; Fellini; Tarkovsky; movement is created due to the smooth change of the focal Steve McQueen length of the lifting lens (zoom lens). Because of all these forms of movement, the distance between the object and its I. INTRODUCTION image on the screen changes. Cinema theorists considered a change in the distance - In this article, in accordance with the methods of art that is, an ability of a camera to record reality from different history analysis, the authors set a goal to identify the most distances and at different scales - as one of the main significant features of the use of varying the distance in expressive means of cinema [1] [2]. Together with the independent films of the 20th century. It also raises the montage and perspective, it was part of the famous Bela question of what is new in changing distances in the modern Balazs’ triad, which at first focused mainly on the close-up cinema, that is, cinema of the end of the 20th - beginning of [3]. In many theoretical works there were disputes over who the 21st century. The relevance of this topic is related to the was the first to use the close-up and what film it was in. For fact that the aesthetics of cinema is undergoing significant aesthetics of silent cinema, the close-up, indeed, assumed transformation at the turn of the century. This is reflected in tremendous significance. The chance to bring a camera close domestic and foreign studies [5], [6], [7]. However, the to the face of an actor, to show emotional states experienced, phenomenon of a change in the distance appears to have had a decisive influence on the formation of cinema as a insufficient reference yet and calls for a closer scrutiny. dramatic art.

Equally important are the opportunities of general shots, II. A CHANGE IN THE DISTANCE IN INDEPENDENT FILMS especially because of their correlation, montage, overflow OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY into other shots, including large and superlarge ones. In the As the classic of the theory of visual culture R. Arnheim first program of the Lumiere brothers, shown in the "Grand wrote, “in the theater ... the spectator sits at the same distance Café", this quality was already actively exploited. "The from the stage all the time. In the cinema, however, he seems arrival of the train" was all one shot. Yet, it was not to be jumping from place to place, looking from a distance monotonous, but changeable. The train approaching a and at close range, from above and through the window, to stationary camera, the transformation of a point on the the right and to the left” [8]. In this structure, close-up is only horizon into a huge steam locomotive - all that gave some one of the means, but it is precisely because of its contrast specific cinematic dynamics to the image. There was a with theatrical poetics that the early history of cinema change of shots from the most distant, general to a close-up. distinguishes this expressive means as the most cinematic, However, we should not forget about photography, the which is the specificity of the new “technical” art. The predecessor of cinema. As early as the 19th century, photo inconsistency of a close-up as a narrative element is that, on

Copyright © 2019, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). 380 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 368 the one hand, it increases the amount of visual information thing, if God overturns the destruction of humanity through that the viewer reads at a time, but, on the other hand, it war. reduces the potential amount of on-screen narration developing in each frame. So, one of the simplest and most The way to new discoveries might be painful, often obvious functions of close-ups was to provide the viewer associated with disappointment and irony, but also with the with the most of visual information about what seems to be need to reconsider the attitude to art, to its inevitable the most important — that is, human nature displayed in convention. At the end of Federico Fellini’s “And the Ship gestures, facial expression, the look in people’s eyes. Sails On ...” (E la nave va, 1983), the camera moves to the Therefore, with the logic of an outstanding director and left. The microphone gets into the frame, followed by the cinema theorist David Wark Griffith, the need for close-ups operators, cameras, and complex lighting equipment. So, the will gradually disappear due to the increase in the size of a viewer sees that the ship, suffering the disaster at the cinema screen, where facial expressions of actors can be well epicenter of the sea battles of the First World War, as well as viewed with medium shots [9]. However, the enlargement of the disturbing sea abyss are just the scenery on the set. cinema screens went along with the birth and development of However, does this negate the tragedy the scenes on the ship the new “small screen” - television. It actualized a close-up were imbued with? Most likely not. The director reveals the paradox of art, which necessarily contains a convention in as well as the opportunity to deeper comprehend human nature, the “x-ray of personality,” according to V. Sappak order to emphasize the sanctity of spiritual values. [10]. At the same time, an actor or a presenter on television To sum up, one of the main things about independent can directly address the audience just like a pop artist. [11]. films of the twentieth century was the drama of transition No gigantism of modern cinema screens can eliminate from close-ups to medium and general plans. A change in the other effects of close-ups, including their symbolic meanings, distance contributed to the intensity of the process of which appear thanks to the total focus of the camera on one understanding the world. It emphasized the difference object only. Close-up signals the viewer about the unusual between illusions and reality, between different angles of an content of the image which remains beyond the continuous ambiguous author's view. The artistic goal of the director can narration. be described as the display of processes in the objective reality as well as in the reality of a man’s inner world. Both In addition, close-up often offers a riddle, making it of these realities appeared ethically and aesthetically difficult to recognize what is actually shown in the frame. complex, ambiguous, changeable. Moving ahead towards Close-ups contain less “life material”. Viewers sometimes this discovery, the director feels absolutely free to create even lose their bearings and cannot immediately understand different meanings. The viewers also seem to be engaged what a fragment is all about and what an overall picture of with the process. The changing distance bears the marks of the world is (or at least a specific dramatic situation, a place individual creative will, powerfully modeling the view of the of action, arrangement of objects in space). The transition reality. from this misunderstanding to understanding (with the help of medium and general shots), to finding the whole and III. TRANSFORMATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF VARYING restoring the coordinate system, is not only an important DISTANCE IN THE ARTHOUSE CINEMA OF THE XXI CENTURY formal device for cinema of the twentieth century. The era of computerization of many creative processes This is the philosophy of independent films, according to and sophistication of modern methods of creating screen which initially the relations between the part and the whole, images have a powerful impact on serious independent films, the hierarchy of the components of the picture of the world now increasingly called arthouse. Electronic technologies are darkened and unclear. The comprehension of the world make it unusually simple to transform various photo and film cannot be smooth, cannot immediately give the recipient shots. Multiple recordings, a videotape reversal, special objective knowledge. This knowledge should be revealed effects making the images look broken and selectively gradually, after all delusions and illusions being shattered. coloring the frame - all these techniques allow a director to So, the house, standing in the middle of a picturesque play with space for arbitrary changes of shots and distances. green landscape in Andrei Tarkovsky's “Sacrifice” (Offret, These opportunities are comparable in their freedom and 1986), appears in one of the scenes in the background, diversity with the game of imagination or dreams. However, blurred, as if not quite real. The character wanders nearby these and many other methods are actively adopted by mass and suddenly notices a small model of a house on a wet, entertainment cinema. Today the intensive use of new swampy land. The camera goes down following the technologies, the game of changing the distance, and character's eyes, and for a while it may seem to the viewer complicated montage are associated primarily with mass film that there is a real big house in front of them. The camera production. appears to be about to approach the house and let you have a Serious cinema of the beginning of the new century in closer look at it. But instead, the camera climbs higher to most cases chooses ascetic expressive means, including a capture the confusion of the character examining a toy house very careful use of changing the distance. Feeling made by his son. This episode conveys the sense of awe surrounded by bright, spectacular entertainment movie, art- towards home and at the same time hints at its fragility and house films fundamentally refuse to increase entertainment. the danger of loss, which occurs at the end of the film. The In addition, too free and frequent use of the method of character sets a fire, promising God to sacrifice the dearest varying the distance is associated with the freedom of

381 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 368 creative expression in independent films of the second half prisoner seeking liberty of Ireland, is sitting at the table in of the twentieth century [12]. However, today this freedom the meeting room and is trying to convince a priest of the seems ill-timed, since modern thinking people - including need for the former to begin his hunger strike, which should those who are also directors of art-house cinema - feel lead him to death. The camera freezes and all the attention is painfully unfree, dependent on the complicated world of total transferred to the actors, their state of mind and nuances of media coverage, globalization, rapidly accelerating technical their interaction. Thus, this scene could have been filmed progress. In the face of all this, an individual is acutely secretly from the characters by a casual peeper or by a experiencing his own smallness, limited opportunities and surveillance camera. It looks as if it was an outside voting rights in the vast world. One doubts if their voice can independent observer who captures exactly what is within be heard at all. the field of his vision, and does not impose on the viewer his own attitude to what is happening, does not help him in any The main issue, however, that is fast becoming a thing of way to evaluate the situation. Thus, the viewer almost does the past is absolute belief in the high value of the author’s not feel the presence of a director as a mediator, which personal vision. It is partly associated with a certain increases the illusion of immersion in a real catastrophic obsession with oneself, which was characteristic of a creative situation. person of the middle and second half of the twentieth century. Over the last decade of the twentieth century and later all the Another significant change in the principle of varying the attention of directing in cinema has been given to the huge distance is a cautious use of close-ups. In many culmination rapidly changing world. Rudolf Arnheim sees it as a scenes of such prominent modern films as “The Pianist” (La combination of “contrasting tendencies”, “non-stop Pianiste, 2001), “Love” (Amour, 2012) and “Happy End” interaction of objects, everything that forms our living (2017) by Michael Haneke, as well as “She” (Elle, 2016) by environment and our own ways of activity”, in which the Paul Verhoeven, “Elena” (2011) and “Loveless” (2017) by tendencies of separation and fragmentation are more evident Andrey Zvyagintsev, “Arrhythmia” (2017) by Boris than structure and consistency [13]. This world is clearly of Khlebnikov and others, general and medium shots are used. more of interest to the director today than his own state of The observing cinema eye as if fears to be noticed, and mind. therefore does not approach what is happening, remains at a distance. As a result, the traditional property of the cinema Visual originality does not always appear important in eye 1 to be omnipresent, invisible and invulnerable in the contemporary independent films. As a last resort, Lars von space where it freely soars and moves is canceled. Such Trier and Thomas Winterberg, in their famous “Dogma 95” behavior used to grant the cinema eye a superhuman status. manifesto, in “The Vow of Chastity” even urged not to The overall picture on the screen was organized as a bunch mention the director’s name in the credits. Yet, the denial of of randomly changing fragments of reality that hypnotized authorship should not be taken too literally, as Trier’s films the viewer and prevented them from thinking, according to analysis shows [14]. We are talking about a symbolic self- the British experimentalist filmmaker Peter Watkins [15]. denial, a declaration of insufficiency of a purely subjective view. Then what purpose should the symbolic “death” of the At the beginning of the 21st century, the superpowers of director serve in the understanding of modern filmmaking? It a cinema eye are perceived as too obvious a convention, a seems that it is the establishment of the status of an objective kind of cliché of poetics that violates the illusion of life- statement, a kind of document of the epoch, rather than the likeness. Modern art-house cinema naturally seeks to author's arbitrary play with images and meanings for a compare the cinema eye not with a superhuman eye, but feature film. rather with human observation. It leads to the tendency to use a hand-held camera, strict dosing of “close-ups”, and According to filmmaking of the beginning of the 21st search for angles available for a person who is watching, century, an author is supposed to grow into the role of a non- who cannot fly in the air, instantly change his or her location, individual, “indifferent” equipment, like a surveillance closely approach the danger and at the same time be able to camera. This is the view of an outside observer conveying keep calm and show what is happening around. what they actually see without adding anything from themselves or simulating reality on the screen. In contemporary art-house cinema, camera-director relations IV. CONCLUSION seem to be going into the shadows, becoming less tangible Thus, the principle of varying the distance undergoes and obvious than screen-viewer relations, as written by the significant transformations in the process of serious cinema publishers of the collective work on independent films [7]. development. It is used in different ways, emphasizing the It is quite natural that the application of the principle of most important semantic links of cinema aesthetics inherent varying the distance now often involves abandoning it. The in the era. In independent films of the twentieth century, a so-called "minus techniques" come into play. Modern change in the distance expresses first of all the specifics of directors are actively turning to the principle of a fixed the author's worldview, gives this worldview in development, camera, but they consider it not as a return to theatrical art, leads the viewer from errors and illusions to the discovery of but rather as a neutralization of the author's activity. For example, in the movie “Hunger” (2008) by Steve McQueen 1 The term “cinema eye” (“Cinema-Eye”) was introduced by Dziga there is a scene when the camera remains almost motionless Vertov, a Soviet director. See: D. Vertov, Kinoki. Revolution / Dziga for about twelve minutes, showing motionless characters. A Vertov. From the heritage. Articles and speeches. In two volumes. Moscow, Eisenstein Center, 2008, V. 2, p. 40-41.

382 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 368 truths or the correction of the picture of the world as a whole. [10] V. Sappak, V. Shitova, Seven years in the theatre. Television and we. At the same time, the principle of changing the distance Moscow, Art, 1968, p. 247. emphasizes the high value of personal research of reality. [11] A. S. Vartanov, “Aesthetic problem of stage and television relationship”: Television variety, Eds. Ju. A. Bogomolov, A. S. Unlimited freedom in changing the distance contributes to Vartanov, Moscow, Science, 1981, pp. 15-18. the creation of the myth of superhuman abilities of the [12] E. V. Salnikova, “Camera’s life: evolution of the myth”, Cinema in cinema eye, this “divine donor of unprecedented experience” the changing world: Collection of articles. Eds. D. Zhurkova D., I. [12]. Osipov, in 2 vol., Vol. 2, Moscow, Publishing resolutions, Ridero, 2016, p. 19. At the beginning of the 21st century, due to a long line of [13] R. Arnheim, “The Split and the Structure”, The Split and the sociocultural and civilizational changes, as well as excessive Structure: Twenty-Eight Essays, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, traditionalization of film aesthetics, the principle of varying University of California Press, 1996, p. 3, 11. the distance begins to serve other purposes. It is often used as [14] R. Sinnerbrink, “Provocation and perversity: Lars von Trier’s a minus-technique; the freedom of multiple changes in the cinematic anti-philosophy”, The Global Auteur: The Politics of distance is sharply limited, down to the use of the principle Authorship in 21st Century Cinema, Eds. Jeong S., Szaniawski J., of a fixed camera. This technique can be adequately New York, London, Bloomsbury, 2016, p. 96. appreciated by the audience of modern art-house cinema, i.e. [15] P. Watkins, Notes on the Media Crisis, URL: http://www.macba.cat/uploads/20100526/QP_23_Watkins.pdf (Date generations of people who grew up on the aesthetics of of access: 08.07.2019) independent films of the twentieth century. In addition, there is a close relationship between the aesthetics of arthouse and that of mass cinema, which preserves the principle of superhuman vision. Against this background, a restriction in the number of close-ups, a semantic focus on medium and general shots as well as a rejection of the excessive freedom of the cinema eye are especially expressive. Arthouse cinema highly appreciates the illusion of a purely human vision, far from superhuman properties. In addition, the new style of applying the principle of varying the distance tends to bring the position of a person observing and reflecting the world to the function of a piece of equipment, an “indifferent” surveillance camera. Such an “eye” does not seem to have an author’s principle, does not overburden the visual image with an intentionally subjective artistic originality. These trends should not be absolutized. However, it is obvious that the author’s change in the distance is replaced by a search for an objectivized view that argues with an earlier tradition.

REFERENCES [1] A. Bazen, What is Cinema? [Qu’est-ceque le cinema?] Moscow, Art, 1972, p. 80. [2] Z. Krasauer, The Nature of Film. Redemption of Physical Reality. Moscow, Art, 1974, p. 16. [3] B. Balazs, Art of the Cinema, Moscow, Goskinoizdat, 1945, p. 23. [4] V. T. Stigneev, “Formation of photo reportage genre in the Soviet photography of the 1920s”, Art&Culture Studies Journal, Moscow, The State Institute for Art Studies, 2018, no 2. pp. 184-185. URL: http://artculturestudies.sias.ru/upload/iblock/834/hk_2018_02_168_1 93_stigneev.pdf (Date of access: 07.08.2019) [5] At the turn of the century. Modern European cinema. Creativity, production, distribution: Collection of articles, Ed. V. Vinogradov, Moscow, VGIK, 2015. [6] M. V. Jampolskij, The memory of Tiresias. Intertextuality of cinema, Moscow, RIK Kul'tura, 1993. [7] The Global Auteur: The Politics of Authorship in 21st Century Cinema. Eds. S. Jeong, J. Szaniawski, New York, London, Bloomsbury, 2016. [8] Arnhejm R. Cinema As Art [Film als Kunst], Moscow, Foreign literature publishing house, 1960. [9] D. W. Griffith, Eds. P. Atasheva, Sh. Ahushkov, Moscow, Goskinoizdat, 1944, p. 71.

383